The Prototype BYU QB

According to Jared Lloyd, during his year end exit interview, Bronco Mendenhall revealed that there is a fundamental shift in the type of quarterback that he wants at the helm.



The success of Riley Nelson as a dual threat QB (run/pass), has made him realize that he likes the versatility such quarterbacks provide - although he doesn't want them to only run but expects them to pass the ball. He recognizes that the QB mobility makes it more difficult for the defense to defend. As such, he wants to continue to have QBs with this type of skill. This approach seems to be capitalizing on using versatile athletes at QB and there have been several historical QBs as described were successful in the past (Jim McMahon, Marc Wilson, Steve Young and Brandon Doman to name a few).



This shift in recruiting helps to explain why we are going after the Hills, Olsens, Mangums, etc. of the world so that we can have more options to attack the D besides the standard drop back passer. I believe it also is why Jake Heaps didn't see his future with the Y at QB because the offense was now going to be tailored to this type of mobile QB. James Lark actually fits this type of description that Mendenhall likes in a QB, and appears to be a good back-up to fill in for Riley as the offense will still suit his style of play.

I think all of BYU nation would have endorsed this philosophy after being scorched by one Christian Ponder.

I personally like this idea. It doesn't mean BYU is going to be running the option or QBs draws every play, but it forces the defense to leave a spy. It brings it back to playing 11-on-11, instead of 10-on-11.



However, I don't think this is the reason why Heaps transferred. If the reincarnation of Peyton Manning decided to come to BYU I am sure we would tailor the offense around him. If Jake had stayed they would have worked around his limited mobility. Also what mobile QB were they going to replace Jake with? Lark is already here and was still 3rd string behind Jake. Mangum? We are just coming off a train wreck of starting an underclassman QB and I don't see the coaches doing that again unless their upperclassmen QBs are droopy eyed one armed children.

Another interesting comment by Bronco about the Utah game. It was a blessing in disguise - not the outcome - but the start of the realization that the QB situation that they had thought was going to be Jake Heaps was not working out and the Utah game pointed out all of those weaknesses. He felt that had the Utah game not been played early in the year, that the problem would not have been discovered until late in the season when it was more difficult to institute a change for the better.

Mars wrote:


I want that LSU offense they used against Alabama in the BCS title game! I hear Doman is all over that already...

And I want that drop back offense that BYU was sportin the first 4 games. That was mouthwatering. :skeptic:

My conclusion. BYU should not have a "prototype" that they are trying to push on QBs. Tailor the offense to fit the strengths of the best QB you have and go from there. If that means running the option, and it's beating teams, that's cool.

The running game developed with insertion of Riley at QB. His running ability allowed QB draws between the tackle that were missing before hand. They had felt beforehand that Jake's effective passing would open up the run game. However, because the passing game was inadequate, the run game had been given less emphasis. Riley stepping in allowed the run game to get extra emphasis coupled in tandem with play action passing from Riley. Bronco sees greater development in this run game approach in 2012 complimented even more with the use of the FB in Iona Pritchard.

If this leads to a run first philosophy by BYU. I'm for it. We're not fooling anybody with our passing game.



We know we can recruit top notch fullbacks and tight ends. I think our offensive line talent is OK, but their poor performance is largely attributed to our passive offensive philosophy. If we can recruit one high quality JC running back every year we have the makings of an awesome Wisconsin style offense setting up huge plays off play action.

I got to thinking. Why would Bronco even bring up this issue? Seems like this is something he would gloss over and simply go out and recruit the "dual-threat". The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if this was a direct attempt at getting Chase Hansen on board with the cougs.

Whatever the case, he should not have Five Stars by his name...unless it's Mangum of course. :D

I don't know guys, I think you might be over analyzing this. None of what you say explains why Heaps (with the amazing arm, can make every throw QB) cannot hit an open receiver. Had Heaps been completing 70% of his passes (instead of 50%), I doubt we'd be having this conversation. And I also doubt that Bronco as a defensive coach, and then a head coach, only realized this year that a QB who can run is more difficult to defend. Every eighth grader knows that.

Apparently Hill and Olsen are already throwing to the WRs and RBs and the word out is that they are great athletes and are developing a good chemistry with the players. I like the idea that there apparently is a lot of dual threat talent at the QB position for the 2012 season.

Thank you Bronco for FINALLY stepping up and starting to imprint your philosophy on the offense. For years the offense has operated autonomous to how you want it. You want a mobile-esque QB, that's great. TELL your offensive coordinators what kind of team YOU want them to be. Make the offense be an extension of YOUR football philosophy like your defense is.



And I wholly agree with golong. If Heaps had been efficient at the start of the year, he would have been a successful QB, still been at BYU and have a very bright future going forward.

golong wrote:
I don't know guys, I think you might be over analyzing this. None of what you say explains why Heaps (with the amazing arm, can make every throw QB) cannot hit an open receiver. Had Heaps been completing 70% of his passes (instead of 50%), I doubt we'd be having this conversation. And I also doubt that Bronco as a defensive coach, and then a head coach, only realized this year that a QB who can run is more difficult to defend. Every eighth grader knows that.

Yeah, I think these comments are more fueled by circumstance than anything else. To me, it's less "this is a major change in BYU's offensive DNA" and more "anybody with half a brain can look at BYU's QB depth chart and realize we may have 5 straight years of mobile QBs, so we better take advantage of that added element."

Mars wrote:


I want that LSU offense they used against Alabama in the BCS title game! I hear Doman is all over that already...

Did you hear LSU wasn't able to leave New Orleans...someone painted a 50 yard line in front of the bus! MAWHAHAHAHA!

Mars wrote:

Thank you Bronco for FINALLY stepping up and starting to imprint your philosophy on the offense.

What's that? "Duh, I don't know... let's punt!"?



Bronco is the one that wanted to switch Riley Nelson to DB. That DID switch Mike Hague to DB. He is no offensive mind, that's for sure.

I wasn't claiming he was an offensive mind. Nor was I speaking to an offensive philosophy. I was speaking to Bronco having the offense play a style of play that is more in line with fanatical effort philosophy he wants from the defensive side of the ball. The offense needs to be tough like the defense.



Bronco may now realize that the type of player who can bring that to his offense is a dual-threat QB.

Spiff, I agree with you. Bronco is finally becoming transparent and involved, dare we even say "educated" (since he once claimed not to understand such things.), but certainly imprinting his influence on the O. I am hopeful he even gets some nasty in the Oline next year.



I hate to toot my horn, but I called this in a thread "the death of the drop-back qb at byu." Maybe death is too strong of a word. But for the near future, the writing was clearly on the wall:

1. Bronco likes toughness, grit, and blue-collar--and that is more commonly found in mobile, 2-star and 3-star qb's and not drop-back, china-doll, slow qb's.

2. Bronco has identified who is OC really is at his roots and heart, notwithstanding BD's brief and unsuccessful foray into a "pro-style" offense. RN is the reincarnation of BDoman.

3. Bronco has struggled most as a DC in defending mobile qb's. It's got his attention.

4. Yes, Riley converted Bronco spiritually, you might say, (maybe even Tebowed) by being the savior of his season. And after the anti-qb got cast out of the offense--mostly because of his poor performance, but also because this offensive system just flat-out performed better with a mobile qb (insert, an inability of the Oline to hold blocks for more than 2.5 seconds on a consistent basis--what got Riley injured in the first place, this season).

5. He has 5 years of mobility lined up, if not more. BUt that is the foreseeable future and THE NOW.

So, Cougar fans, like it or lump it, but the days of the drop-back qb at BYU are now antiquated relics--unless the next 5-star qb, TM, can re-convert Bronco to the "good ole days."



And I really doubt Bronco is pandering to Chase Hansen. Last thing he wants is another qb contro going on with a spoiled recruit who "didn't want to come to BYU" in the first place when he has several very capable mobile qb's in the hopper.

declocoug wrote:
I got to thinking. Why would Bronco even bring up this issue? Seems like this is something he would gloss over and simply go out and recruit the "dual-threat". The more I thought about it, the more I wondered if this was a direct attempt at getting Chase Hansen on board with the cougs.

Bronco didn't bring anything up. He was asked a question, which he answered honestly. Plus the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Bronco never said that they were going to quit recruiting drop back passers, just said that he liked how difficult it is to defend a dual threat QB. This is not a new revelation, everyone knows it is harder to defend a dual threat QB. We did just fine with John Beck and Max Hall because they executed the offense at a high level. The reason our last drop back passer was not successful was simply because he was not executing the offense very well. Riley's running ability did open things up but he also executed the passing game at a higher level then Heaps which has been pointed out statistically ad nausium.